Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: mentalguy on October 25, 2005, 04:57:20 PM
-
i think the ships should be more like battlefield 1942.
it would create a more realistic naval warfare.
-
You have to explain better many of us have never played the game you speak of.
-
:huh
You used the word "realistic" in the same context as "Battlefield 1942". That is......disturbing.
-
in battlefield you can drive the ships directly
-
um, mabey only for destroyers. most other ships stayed close in with the task group and defended the carrier. i play the forgotten hope mod of BF42 because i despised how un-realistic "vanilla 42" was. the way we have ships now is fine. tho i would like more diverse task group types, such as ones that have only cruisers and destroyers. and others with multiple carriers.
-
Wouldn't that be fun. Standing there driving a ship for 3 or 4 hours to get it on station.
-
have a couple of extra destroyer escorts that can be detached from the many task group. That a single player could man, have its 5 inch guns available plus the 20 mm's each gun could be maned. if sunk it would not reappear until the carrier was destroyed or whet back to the port. The ship if detached would be available until destroyed. nothing could spawn from the detached ship. This could be a for runner to having subs in the game. Then just a matter of added sonar and depth charges to be available. The other possible is to have destroyers at each port that can be taken similiar to a pt boat is now. Could do the same with the CV group but once the cv and crusier is destroyed you can not spawn the destroyer. Just think out load. comments please
DarkHawk (DHawk)
edit: for some spelling error
-
id like to see a destroyer and a battleship that you could man
it would a more stragetic naval warfare
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
id like to see a destroyer and a battleship that you could man
it would a more stragetic naval warfare
Huh????
Ths is a Flight sim, not a naval sim.
-
Originally posted by ahgod69
Huh????
Ths is a Flight sim, not a naval sim.
Oh, fer cryin'...
If you don't want it, it doesn't mean that nobody should want it. When will you "my way or the highway" guys realize that...
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PLAYER IN THE GAME
AND YOUR WISHES ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WORTH HAVING
-
anyways it's not a flight sim, it's a war sim. at least thats what it seems to me.. sure it's basis is plane combat... but to me, so was war... sure it's not a FPS ala, code of arms, or a RTS, ala, command and conquer. But it's an actuall war sim... or getting close to it.
-
so if its a War som where's my Javelin Anti Tank missle, My M4 SOP MOD, My 9mm Beretta, my HE grenades, and my 1337 AWP? Heck an M1...I belive its a FLight sim with gv's to balance out the game.
-
Okay. I think we SHOULD have detachable ships. Maybe not directly... "drivable" for lack of a better word, but were controled in much the same way as the carriers, in that you give it a point to go to, and therefore these detachable ships would not become perfect weapons, they would have limitations, but they could be used for several purposes, including scouting for enemy ships, attacking a CVBG without risking your carrier, or for launching diversionary attacks or flanking enemy ships and bases. They would have their limitations, but would be increadibly useful. Also, this isnt a flight simulator. This is a World War Two simulator. If it was a FLIGHT simulator, we wouldnt be steering CVBGs, and driving tanks. And the fact that it ISNT just planes is what makes this game truely great.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how whenever anyone dares to mention or suggest any change that doesnt involve fighters they get...excuse the pun...shot down. THIS IS NOT A FLIGHT SIM.....There is more too this game than flying a fighter, of course I understand that those who criticise probably do nothing else. I agree hawk that there are more things that could be tried. Perhaps if you had suggested these extra ships could have come with a catapult you might have got a more posotive response.:)
-
If we get around to a Pacific CT setup, then I could really see the Naval Aspects of the game being developed a bit more. Or at least I could see that as an opportunity to develope them.
But that's just it. I think that in order to have manable ships, the whole Naval role in the game would have to be re-developed. Maybe something involving supply convoys would work. But just driving around in DDs anc BBs isn't going to give anyone anything "realistic"
-Sik
-
Well, - we still "need" the BATTLESHIP.
With that one....SUBS ;)
(HT has said that it's somewhere in the future I belive)
Just the Battleship, and then two kinds of task forces could be fun. Something like the big one (1 BB, 2 cv's, 2 cruisers and 4-6 destroyers) vs something like we have now?
Fire control is also lacking a bit if there is a Battleship, - it's a lot of work to man all them guns you see.
Maybe firecontrol as a perk thing?
Then there was the light cruiser. With only 6 inch guns (12 of them in many of the RN ships such as HMS Belfast), the range was quite adequate (enough for the Horizon) and the ROF was very very good. (A turret would launch some 18 - 30 shells per minute? (10 pro minute pro barrel, or was it 6-10??). Now that one is a monster for slashing down small vessels!
-
Personally, i would tend to reject any british, austrailian and canadian ships just because, asthetically, they are UGLY. As far as the effect they have, i like that. Another thing we might want to look into is, brace yourselves, during CT and scenarios, realistic fleets that are DIFFERENT on each side. America would have her old CVs, Japan would have her's, britan would have hers, and Germany would have... none!!! YAY!!! (Now all those Luftwhiners out there, dont get on my arse about this. Im one of you, and ive reasearched it. There where 2 CVs planned, one built, but never comissioned, and the other was broken up)
-
The only reasion why i mentioned it in the first place is because I was active Navy and i have woundered all them years ago, what was it like.... This game, has given me the closest thing possible to being "real" for WWII.. and I for one, have had enough fun to buy a subscription.... and believe me, I put alot of research into playing a game, before buying it... so to speak... I would even be open to testing things out... but I'm not one to post saying change this, change that.. I make suggestions on what would be funner for me... which doesnt mean it would be funner for you, or even somebody who likes to play with bombers... of course that person wouldnt like ships.. to hard to hit.. and they'd be mad at me sitting on the horizon, shelling their hanger from 20k away... while my lil scout figher friend said. oooh close a lil to the left.... no the other left!.
-
Actually, id LOVE to have you sitting on the horizon shelling my hangar!!! It would make things WAY mor interesting!!! And, i might get to put torpedo bombers to WAY more use!
-
well, as the game turns more towards a WWII Sim... if we start getting perk points... for both commanding groups... and or gunning in them.. you'll start seeing more .. full CV gun placements... and the perk points we get for shooting people down, or blowing up places... (from distance.. there has to be rules against beaching a CV. and direct shooting...)... the perk points could be used to get "special" ships.. i.e. battleships and what not... per Supplies used in war... so that way there wont be oceans filled with BB's.. just like the skys arent filled with Jets...
-
Excellent. Personally, i dont EVER want to see more than about 9-12 BBs on that ocean at once! Also, if you beach your ship, they should reduce the number of perks you can get, and, if you dont manage to get anything BIG (ie every building on the base) you LOSE perks, and cannot land it as a sortie. To land sorties, you have to head either to a friendly port, or a CVBG. Nothing else. But you should lose HUGE numbers of perks for not "landing it", because then people will just ditch after a strike. You should not get any perks if you dont either land, or get destroyed. If you just ditch, you lose it all.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Personally, i would tend to reject any british, austrailian and canadian ships just because, asthetically, they are UGLY. As far as the effect they have, i like that. Another thing we might want to look into is, brace yourselves, during CT and scenarios, realistic fleets that are DIFFERENT on each side. America would have her old CVs, Japan would have her's, britan would have hers, and Germany would have... none!!! YAY!!! (Now all those Luftwhiners out there, dont get on my arse about this. Im one of you, and ive reasearched it. There where 2 CVs planned, one built, but never comissioned, and the other was broken up)
Ahem. Ugly? Young Reynolds, look up the RN ships, - many are quite elegant.
HMS BELFAST.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/HMS_Belfast_in_Korea.jpg)
6 inch guns, but rapid fire.
And the big ones (Although I rather like the Scharnhorst and Bismarck, even the Roma as well as the really big U.S. ships):
King George V class:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/HMS_Howe_%28Royal_Navy_battleship%29.jpg)
Only 13 inch guns (Between Bismarck (15) and Scharnhorst (11)), - Calibre sacrificed for ROF and weight.
-
Okay, by ugly, i dont mean the hull. My thing is, the Bridges look... panzy-ish. No offense, they just seem REALLY small, next to my beloved Scharnhorst, and the guns are... horribly aysimetrical. I have this huge thing for symetricallity. I cant stand things that arent symetrical. I cant even look at the outside of my beloved 109, because seeing that intake on the left side starts me twitching. Its those britich destroyers that had a gun in the... middle? It was between two superstructures, and looked like it only pointed one way. The ones that annoyed me in particular were those that participated in defending norway in the beggining of WWII. And the 4 guns in the no. 1 turret in that King George V look like CRAP!!! Sorry, its just way too many guns lined abreast for my taste. They should move one up to the no. 2 turret. Belfast also has the same asthetic problem, in that those two front turrets should have one gun each, but a larger gun. Its just not balanced. Other than that gun problem the Belfast IS elegant. Move those guns, snip here, clip there, and shed be a ship i might actually enjoy looking at! :D
-
Symmetric or not, HMS Belfast Wrestled the 3 times bigger Scarnhorst and scored hits at 13K. Rapid fire made them track faster I guess.
Well, Symmetric? 6 guns front, 6 on the back.
The KGV class had more on fron then back, and the Rodney (that one is ugly :D) had all on the front. So, it's an attacker that you don't want facing you with it's nose, for then you have ALL 9 16 inch Guns Pointing at you.
(Bismarck had a sour taste of that one).
HMS Nelson:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/HMS_Nelson_%281925%29.jpg)
-
EEEWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!! Oh, and its more port and starboard symetrical that gets me. Also, the gun number on each turret has to feel... balanced. a DD shouldnt have two large guns in a turret.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Oh, fer cryin'...
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PLAYER IN THE GAME
AND YOUR WISHES ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WORTH HAVING
Damn my bubble's burst.:cry
-
(http://www.starblazers.com/images/gallery_images/10.jpg)
-
WTF IS THAT?!?
-
Originally posted by Blixen
(http://www.starblazers.com/images/gallery_images/10.jpg)
Space battleship Yamato.
Would have to perk it . The wave motion gun is just to unbalancing.
:D
Bronk
-
It's...fictional.
BTW, What's the gun number pro turret in the Scharnhorst? Not exactly symmetrical I'm afraid...
-
no diddly its fictional? lol i thought my cartoon planes were real:lol
-
Originally posted by Angus
It's...fictional.
BTW, What's the gun number pro turret in the Scharnhorst? Not exactly symmetrical I'm afraid...
As far as the big guns, its pretty symetrical. I cannot think of any side that isnt symetrical...
-
6 on the front and 3 on the back.
3 - 3 - 3
HMS Belfast: 3-3-3-3
-
I like the little battle ships with Lots of cannons. The small ships were hard to hit wile the big guns would beat the tar out of ya.:aok
-
http://users3.ev1.net/~cfmoore/history/1944normandy-all.htm[/URL]
Like this one YEA!!!!! :aok :O
-
Originally posted by Angus
6 on the front and 3 on the back.
3 - 3 - 3
HMS Belfast: 3-3-3-3
Front to back doesnt bother me at all. Its left and right that get under my skin.
-
UM why cant we fire the big 14 or 15 inch guns on our battle ships, Would be nice to hammer a base that way get a pilot to bail out on a hill just over a base and be the spoter for ya and help you walk thouse rounds right on in the 14 and 15 inch guns would take a hanger out quite nicley :aok :t
-
Originally posted by red26
UM why cant we fire the big 14 or 15 inch guns on our battle ships, Would be nice to hammer a base that way get a pilot to bail out on a hill just over a base and be the spoter for ya and help you walk thouse rounds right on in the 14 and 15 inch guns would take a hanger out quite nicley :aok :t
THats exactly why. Because you would do that. It WOULD be fun, but the spotter would have to be airborne to be fair.
-
When I was in Iraq and we were getting hit by incoming fire the spotter for the enemy wanst flying around. We didnt know were the heck he was?
So we would have to just call in AS and look for him. I kinda understand what your saying so If not just chute down put the spotter in a GV.
Or you could have the option of flying a C-47 over the base and droping the paratrooper out that way the base knows atleast what direction he is in? and that he is there.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Front to back doesnt bother me at all. Its left and right that get under my skin.
AFAIK left and right on both KGV class, Belfast and generally every proper warship are symmetrical. PUNKTUM.
And for the spotter the Jeep is perfect ;)
-
QUOTE]And for the spotter the Jeep is perfect [/QUOTE]
By Angus
So Angus do you support my idea for the 14" and 15" guns too along with the spotter???[
-
Originally posted by red26
UM why cant we fire the big 14 or 15 inch guns on our battle ships, Would be nice to hammer a base that way get a pilot to bail out on a hill just over a base and be the spoter for ya and help you walk thouse rounds right on in the 14 and 15 inch guns would take a hanger out quite nicley :aok :t
You can shell bases with the 8inch guns on the Cruisers (the biggest guns we have in the game) and The targeting mode makes them very effective for shore bombardment.
-Sik
-
Come on the bigger the gun the better put the same targeting sys, on the 14" or 15" guns YEA!!! but the main reason is that you could fire father out from the target and it would take more time for the torpedo bombers and attack planes to get to you. a little more of a chance for the CV's:aok :O
-
Originally posted by red26
Come on the bigger the gun the better put the same targeting sys, on the 14" or 15" guns YEA!!! but the main reason is that you could fire father out from the target and it would take more time for the torpedo bombers and attack planes to get to you. a little more of a chance for the CV's:aok :O
Then the Answer to your original question would be: Because we don't have 14 or 15 inch guns.
-Sik
-
I know we have thouse little bitty 8"'ers they are desent but what fleet travled around without a Battle Ship?? that would be suicide for the CV if they came in contact with a enmy CV FLEET that was ready for anything.
Bring on the Battle Ship!!!!!
And Bring on the BIG GUNS YEA!!!!!!!!:aok :aok :O :O
-
Originally posted by red26
I know we have thouse little bitty 8"'ers they are desent but what fleet travled around without a Battle Ship?? that would be suicide for the CV if they came in contact with a enmy CV FLEET that was ready for anything.
Bring on the Battle Ship!!!!!
And Bring on the BIG GUNS YEA!!!!!!!!:aok :aok :O :O
I'm sorry. In your original post you seemed to be asking why we didn't have access to a weapon that wasn't in fact in the game. Now as I understand it, you are asking for that weapon to be modelled in the game, so that you can use it.
All this ship talk is making me wish I still had my copy of burning steele.
-Sik
-
Red26:
"So Angus do you support my idea for the 14" and 15" guns too along with the spotter???"
Basically yeah!
The smallest true battleship guns had 11 inches - the biggest 16.
While range remains roughly the same, the big ones have a lot smaller ROF.
So what caliber, is a matter of taste.
Also, how big the secondary guns are.
With little doubt the finest BB's were the U.S. ones from late war but there were others as well.
Bismarck was good, so was the British KGV class, and then you have the Battlecruisers like Scharnhorst, and "Pocket" ones like the Graf Spee.
Same with cruisers - 6 inch guns had a much higher ROF than the 8 inch guns, - but the punch is much less. However, you're tracking and hitting much faster, so a 6 inch gunned cruiser can be very nasty ;)
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
Wouldn't that be fun. Standing there driving a ship for 3 or 4 hours to get it on station.
I saw another game like that, it was called something like "X-treme Cross-stitching 2007", I think.
-
Yes, i think a spotter in a Jeep would be the best option, so that the jeep got more use instead of just to resuply moving tanks. But i think that there should be some system put in place that made a Jeep WAY better than any other vehicle for spotting, maybe a little screen on the upper right, that, when you have a jeep near your target, theres a map in your gunners position that shows you where your shots are landing, but as soon as the Jeep gets destroyed, that goes away.
Oh, and Angus, ive seen ships that have a gun in the middle that only points out of the left or right side. Im not sure if you can remove the guns and rotate the turret, but it doesnt look as if the guns are short enough to allow the turret to rotate.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The smallest true battleship guns had 11 inches - the biggest 16.
You forgot about the Yamato and Musashi -- 18 inch guns.
Not that it helped them any.;)
-
I think hes talking about American ships. New Jersey class had 3 triple 16-inch. We have the BB-63 Missouri right outside my window!
-
Originally posted by E25280
You forgot about the Yamato and Musashi -- 18 inch guns.
Not that it helped them any.;)
Me bad.
II think there were some that big in WW1 as well. I've seen one 18 inch shell at the IWM - big mooma!
But in WW2 AFAIK only Mushashi and Yamato had the 18 inch guns, and probably never fired them in anger.
16 inch was on the NJ class and the Nelson/Rodney class, not sure of more.
Not sure if Rodney could fire all forward at the same time, - maybe under high elevation, but at least with some angle. BTW it was a shell from Rodney that knocked out Bismarck's control center. Bismarck was also firing at Rodney, - recognizing Rodney as the prime threat.
15 inch was on Dozens of ships in the RN and the US as well as Bismarck & Tirpitz etc. The shell is some 2000 lbs, so you can imagine the impact striking an airfield with one!
14 inch applies to the KGV class (not 13, sorry) and 10 0f them, 6 fore, so on the front they bite more evilly than Bismarck.
Then we're down to 11 (Scharnhorst-Gneienau, and the Pocket battleships)
8 goes for heavy cruisers, 6 for light ones, and that brings us basically down to the smaller calibers which are the BB's secondary armaments and the DD's primary ones.
So, in short, if HTC will add a battleship, there is a lot to choose from.
2 BB's, one light cruiser, one escort carrier and then eventually a submarine (Either a patrol issue or from spawn points) would make the game a very effective naval sim as well as a flight sim, and might well attract new players ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Gneienau,
You spelled that wrong! :p lol.
Gneisenau. :D :aok
-
Typo.
Doh!
-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00002S5Q0/104-0317909-8017502?v=glance&n=468642
For anyone who wants more Naval Surface Warfare, you might try to find a copy of Fighting Steel. I think the game came out of the Oven too soon, but it's still pretty cool, Even though it's really dated.
-Sik
-
The problem with WWII Surface fighting games... no intelligent pilots.... the problem with WWII Air Fighting Games.... No intelligent Ship Captians or Ground Vech.
The problem with WWII Ground fighting games... No intelligent... anything...
(maybe band of brothers, and call of duty, but only slightly)
What the world needs is a good All around game, that has "Real like physics" so the guns you shoot arent shooting Lazers they are shooting bullets, with drop... and you dont have to deal with somebody bouncing around like theyre a fricking bunny or something. just so they dont get shot cause they have no Skill... (that would be ground combat)
as far as ships go... as this game moves more towards a WWII sim, and away from a WWII Air sim... as i think i am hearing... I can still be called Aces High.. since thats the name of the game anyways... but allong with the aces in the sky, we can have ground battles and everything... just think... There you are flying when all the sudden, Jo Army man, on the ground says over radio... I dont know what they are, but I see planes high through my binocks, at x.y. need air support.. then you start flying over, only to find flak... so you raido Jo army man... take those guns out... and Jo army man, calls for Jane Sailor... to Shoot her cannons, at x.y.z, all the while youre in a heated battle... when out of the blue you have to jump...
so while under chute, you notice a big ground battle going on... great youre screwed.. so you flop to the groung have your pistola.. and now youre not in youre element your big metal death beast... but you can still KILL...
the hunts on.. find youre people... or be found...
-
Originally posted by Campi
The problem with WWII Surface fighting games... no intelligent pilots.... the problem with WWII Air Fighting Games.... No intelligent Ship Captians or Ground Vech.
The problem with WWII Ground fighting games... No intelligent... anything...
(maybe band of brothers, and call of duty, but only slightly)
um... NO. I LOVE call of duty, but they arent nearly intelegent. The guys are always in the same place doing exactly the same thing...
-
If we get a Battle Ship I would like the USS Texas it was a nice ride in WWI and WWII not for shure of this but I think it even saw gun time in Korea and Veit Nam not for shure though.:aok :O
-
I want the Nevada!:D
-
Wonder which WW2 capital ship saw the most service.
And which ones fired the most as well.
I'll put my money on some British ship for service, such as the Warspite for instance, while the one lobbing the biggest total amount of shells would have been a US ship in the Pacific (intensive shore bombardments all the time).
Anyone?
-
Hmmm. Most service would be a British Destroyer i think. Most shells would be American in the pacific, most UBER would be German though! :D
-
No.
Capital ships, BB's and + perhaps Cruisers.
Most service UK.
Most shells USA.
Uber ... Late USA
Uber-Uber Musashi and Yamato, and yet not, for the USA had more advanced fire control.
Most Uber hit: HMS Warspite (WWI design) hitting an italian ship with a 15 inch shell at full speed at some 26 KM
Most effective hit: Bismarck sinking the HMS Hood with one shell (Lack of armor allowed the shell to penetrate into the ammo lager)
Runner up: HMS Rodney Knocking out Bismarck's control center with one 16 inch shell. (???)
David vs Goliath: HMS Belfast spanking the Scarnhorst with 6 inch guns vs 11 inch guns, being just about 1/4th of the size!!!
Largest Navy in the beginning of WW2: UK
In the end: USA
-
We should have a few TG's that contain only one ship.
example:
a Bismark Class
a Yamamoto Class
an Iowa Class
and a King George V Class
notice these are all Bigoscar BBs packin a helluva lotta Firepower
These would be good for scenarios and such, but I think i can see them in the MA, ya know, one or two for each side. they could be a pain in the arse to sink and quite a formidable weapon against other TGs and ground targets.
We could missions specific to the sinking of these monsters.
Can you a imagine a Triple Threat between 3 of these!
Think of the amount of AA! the 1943 Iowa Class I know had some
80! 40mm/56 Anti-Aircraft
and
49! 20mm/70 Anti-Aircraft great gookamuka! I'd like to see those stuka junkies get through that!
ALSO, we need to be able to catapult planes of of these ships. The Bismark could launch off 4 off of one two-way catapult, The Yamamoto could launch 7 off of 2 catapults, I'm not saying limit it to four or 7, the point is that they could.
-
Good point :aok
They'd be better off with an escort cruiser though, morre logical.
HTC has said that he dreams of adding a sub. There's the threat for them, as well as an ENEMY BB!!!
-
Originally posted by red26
If we get a Battle Ship I would like the USS Texas it was a nice ride in WWI and WWII not for shure of this but I think it even saw gun time in Korea and Veit Nam not for shure though.:aok :O
Nope. After WWII it was almost sold to China. Thankfully it was bought by the state of Texas and brought to the San Jacinto battleground under the jurisdiction of the State Parks and Recreation department. Which is a shame, they neglected her almost to the point of ruin. I've chipped alot of paint on that battlewagon and never get tired of visiting her!
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Hmmm. Most service would be a British Destroyer i think. Most shells would be American in the pacific, most UBER would be German though! :D
Most uber would be a tie between the Yamato class 18" and the 16"/50 cal US guns. They were more or less equal.
-
yeah i was gonna say the yamato and her sister carried 18 inchers.. but all that firepower couldn't do much against air power :)
-
Important things:
Firepower
ROF
Fire control
Crew status
That's how a 6" ship can spank the one with 11" :D
-
I've always been partial to the clipper bow US battleships, in particular the post Pear Harbor rebuilds of California and West Virginia. They look sleek, and WeeVee has those 16 inchers too :)
(http://www.usswestvirginia.org/images/ship/recon.jpg)
-
Looks wonderful.
And doesn't spoil it...she was on IWO JIMA :aok
-
I had the luck of being in the navy when the Iowa class BB's were in commission. We operated with the Iowa in the Med. doing a couple replenishments with her. I can tell you there is no more beautiful sight than that of the Iowa class at sea. It's the one memory I'll cherish above any other during my active duty time.
The Iowa's were truly a marvel of warship engineering. The punch of the Yamato's with greater accuracy, the seconday armament of 4 Fletcher class destroyers (or just over 3 Gearing class), the best damage control and fire control available, armor almost equaling that of the Yamato's, the top speed of many destroyers, the ability to turn with destroyers during maneuvers, and still able to fit (barely) through the Panama Canal. Without doubt the greatest BB class ever built.
To give you an idea how much had changed from the WWI era battlewagons to the Iowa's, check out this pic of the USS Wisconsin alongside the hulk of the USS Oklahoma:
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h78000/h78940.jpg)
-
What ever happened to the USS Oklahoma?
-
Originally posted by Avenger1
What ever happened to the USS Oklahoma?
"The difficult savage job began in March 1943, and Oklahoma entered dry dock 28 December. Decommissioning 1 September 1944, Oklahoma was stripped of guns and superstructure, and sold 5 December 1946 to Moore Drydock Co., Oakland, Calif. Oklahoma parted her tow line and sank 17 May 1947 540 miles out, bound from Pearl Harbor to San Francisco."
very nice site on the Oklahoma at:
http://www.ussoklahoma.com/
-
Dan as usual :aok
And Diablo:
"The Iowa's were truly a marvel of warship engineering. The punch of the Yamato's with greater accuracy, the seconday armament of 4 Fletcher class destroyers (or just over 3 Gearing class), the best damage control and fire control available, armor almost equaling that of the Yamato's, the top speed of many destroyers, the ability to turn with destroyers during maneuvers, and still able to fit (barely) through the Panama Canal. Without doubt the greatest BB class ever built. "
You're a Navy guy, - cool ;)
Those ships were indeed the ultimate BB's. If AH would introduce the BB, I'd put my money on those. They're U.S. they were some by numbers and they were top-notch.
That said, I'd still like to see Bismarck, KGV, and Yamato ;)
Bismarck for fame. Famous, good looking, and took a lot to sink.
KGV for service. Those were working a lot. Heavily armoured for surface engagements, and with a slightly smaller calibre the ROF is high.
Yamato for the bulk. Sheer bulk and big gunz!!!!
-
"The difficult savage job began in March 1943, and Oklahoma entered dry dock 28 December. Decommissioning 1 September 1944, Oklahoma was stripped of guns and superstructure, and sold 5 December 1946 to Moore Drydock Co., Oakland, Calif. Oklahoma parted her tow line and sank 17 May 1947 540 miles out, bound from Pearl Harbor to San Francisco."
Thank's Guppy35!
-
The KGV's were actually a compromise of various aspects, namely their armamemt of 14" guns would be deemed "adequite" but hardly devastating. There were relatively fast and stable gun platforms with very good radar/fire control. On the whole I would rate them 'above average' but certainly superior to the WWI-ear battleships that were modernized.
The Bismarck, I think, suffers from alot of WWII hype. Like the KGV's it was a relatively fast and stable gun platform with decent main armament. It's fire control was good, especially it's optical FC but overall it was considered better than average. I am sure that a Washington or a North Carolina class BB would have bettered the Bismarck or Tirpitz in a one on one duel, but that is just an educated guess.
As far as look go there's nothing more pleasing to the eye than "Mr. Glassjaw" HMS Hood.
(http://www.all2know.com/de/media/6/67/british_battlecruiser_hms_hood_circa1932.jpg)
(http://www.military.cz/ww2_ships/GB/BB/Hood/hood11_s.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Misc%20Warships/HMSHood.jpg)
-
Don't mean to dig up a dying thread, but I thought this article I came across while at work was pertinent to this thread. Sorry if it is duplicated somewhere else -- don't have time to re-read the entire thread.
http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm
Enjoy
-
Ya know I would love to see a big prettythang task group on each side with multiple battle ships and 1 or two CV's
Imagine the battles we could have.
Mind you I think that HTC would have to add collisions for NME ships so that if the two or all three of the large task groups entered close conmat turning would become an issue.. (maybe that would just create whine threads though)
Would also like to see amphibious landing craft that could drop off tanks and jeeps but that is not going to happen.....
-
This is a much more comprehensive comparison of the WWII battleships. The outcome is the same, more or less, but it goes into much greater detail. It is quite subjective but he does go into great detail with his conclusions.
Baddest of the bad. (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm)
As for fleets in Aces High, I can only imagine the whines generated between the ship discrepencies. It would be fun though.
-
Nice link Diablo :aok
-
The Vanguard was the best BB on the Allied side. Yes, even better than the Iowas.
Angus, that 18" at the IWM is from the HMS Furious. The revolving turret and gun weighed a whopping 827tons. The gun weighed 150tons.
In theory, the 3320lb shell had a range of ~30,000yds.
Three guns were manufactured, 2 for the Furious and the other as a spare. After the Furious was converted to a carrier the guns went to the monitors Lord Clive and General Wolfe for shore bombardment in which they proved very successful.
-
Good golly!
Were you there Milo? It's bloody well worth it.
And here is a missing point from the BB discussion. (Well, it's covered in Diablos link)
The importance of the fire control and as well, as who scores the first hits is vital.
Once a gun commander is registering hits, the target cannot remain steady for long if there is to be any sense in the business. It has to break.
The Prince of Wales was lobbing shells into the Bismarck, but the ship being brand new and still with carpenters on board, had troubles with the guns. I can't remember which one disengaged, but I think it was actually the Bismarck. She received some 3 (?) hits, - from memory.
The HMS Belfast was a better example though. Hitting the Scharnhorst with her little 6" guns, she forced Scharnhorst to break. Not the big teeth, but good fire control, elite crew (admiral vessel), and high ROF allowed her to track on target much faster. Likely, Scharnhorst could have slugged it mout by moving closer, but at very high cost, if not loss. (other ships).
-
Originally posted by Blixen
(http://www.starblazers.com/images/gallery_images/10.jpg)
+1
I used to watch this MANY years ago. I always thought it was the Arizona, so I guess my whole life is a lie......;)
-
its the Argo from Starblazers